Like this:

Finally, the day is upon us. That fateful night, when we find out who won and who lost and tantrums will be thrown and glares cast (expect many from me). We will see the room split into groups of supporters and campaign teams, all looking gaunt and pale and jittery from nerves and the last week’s absolute hell. I will be there live tweeting and cackling, shouting “I’m not even going to be here next year!” at the top of my lungs. Manic laughter and too many pints.

I feel I can only really call one of the vice-president races, and that’s the VPS race. Urte has a lot of support and has definitely been the most visible. Also her policies are p good so yah I’m going to go with saying she will win.

The rest are really a toss up for me, and I can’t really tell, even though I have my hunches. With all the drama surrounding Faatima, it might turn out badly for her, but also her policies and nice face might draw people in, or a backlash to the backlash where people turn out to support her and say F U to the haters! That might be a bit optimistic, but good luck Faatima from your fan blog. Theo and Jonny seem kind of neck and neck to me, but Jonny’s vague campaign might let him down, as Theo’s policies actually have some substance. Also, sorry Michael…

VPAA will either be Imo or Calum, who have both been nice and visible. I just saw Tom Kerr in the Teviot corridor and he gave me the raging death stare, so tonight I may day or be made to “disappear”, who knows. I’m going to request a human shield at all times, the balcony in the Debating Hall would be a good spot for snipers. RIP me, and Tom Kerr’s campaign prospects.

VPSA is a close call too. I’d say there’s three in the running: Hannah, Iqbal and Andy. Because I’m a reverse sexist and also because her policies are ace I want Hannah to win, but Iqbal was a strong second preference. I have a feeling Iqbal will pull through, though Andy the new face on the EUSA scene (EUScene) could be a dark horse. He has a lot of likes and a lot of views so hmmMmMmmmmm… It’s all a mystery. Shuwanna didn’t do great in the debates and I haven’t seen her around very much so it’s sad but I don’t really know what her chances are like. Also Kashish wasn’t at the debate but she’s been more visible on Facebook in the last few days. I thought her policies were spot on.

All in all I don’t know but I am excited. My mum and dad are in town so they’re going to pop in and see what it’s all like. I really don’t know why they would want to do that but hey… All I know is I might be killed tonight, so start a Change.org petition to stop Tom Kerr’s campaign team murdering me, thanks.

Lastly, WELL DONE EVERYBODY WE GOT THROUGH IT. Sorry to those who received abusive behaviour or ridiculous, obsessed smear campaigns. This is notoriously a trying time of year, what with essays and the elections, so take a few days (or weeks) to rest and watch Netflix and drink hot chocolate and self-care. You deserve it! And if you don’t win, know that you fought well (except you, you know who you are) and you got people talking and thinking about issues you raised!

The LGBT+ Liberation Group is a group designed to represent students who self-define as LGBT+, and a space for them to work together and organize around these issues. This is understandable, and even obvious, right? Maybe not, seeing as some people fund it so hard to grasp the need for women-only spaces and BME liberation groups.

Robbie Travers believes we should open up liberation groups to anybody, whether they define into them or not. He wishes for a “meritocratic” view of liberation, that the quality of the point and not the lived experience is what makes a good advocate for, say, BME rights or LGBT+ rights. He believes that he is fit for the job, and I don’t know nor would I say what his sexuality is on a public forum, but he suggests straight people could run for LGBT+ Liberation Group Convener.

Basically, a candidate for a liberation group does not believe in the autonomy of liberation groups, and would like to put into place this “meritocratic” system of voting in leadership to liberation groups. This doesn’t make any sense to me, I am baffled. He would have to up-haul not only EUSA’s liberation structures, but NUS’s too, which seems ridiculous and pretty much impossible. I define into that section group and there is no way I would allow a representative of my issues open up this space to straight people. I’m sure many others would agree with me.

I had a lil look at his blog too, and under in his article “The Decay of the Left and the Need to Reaffirm Liberalism” he echoes much of what is said in articles by Sp!ked and the absolutist free-speech crowd. He believes that people bandy around the “insidious ideology” that is “identity politics” too much and use it to silence rational discourse. He believes that “privileging the views of group of people above another” is censorious, which I find pretty funny, as he’s basically saying that the voices of oppressed minorities calling out bigotry are privileged… like, seriously?? He also questions the need for safe spaces and mental well-being of students, saying that “mental safety” is “speciously defined”, and is used simply to block out any form of conflict. In a way, yes, that’s true Robbie. Safe space policies are there to block out abusive and triggering language, to protect the mental health of those affected by it. What is wrong with that? I don’t trust a person who believes that putting in structures to protect students’ mental health is supporting some kind of neo-fascist agenda.

Robbie also claims that he has been the victim of transphobic bullying, by way of him being “more feminine”, while admitting that he is in fact not transgender or even “transsexual” (jfc like at least try and learn the right terms and not offensive alternatives)… How is this guy going to represent trans issues when he doesn’t even get trans politics?

HAHAHA he also believes you can be racially prejudiced against white people.

Oh, God. Make of him what you will, but as a person who defines into the LGBT+ liberation group, I’m certain he wouldn’t be very good at representing us, with his strange opinions of allies and representation, and his downright awful views of transphobia.

Like this:

Big massive shout out to The Student, Ilinca and Thurston for this well written article of Edinburgh’s, not simply EUSA’s, problem of toxic and vile attitudes during campaigning period: “Edinburgh, we have a problem.”

It’s always useful to voice disillusion with organisations that are meant to represent you but you feel they don’t, and it’s totally legitimate to not want to get involved with student politics if you believe it is too cliquey. Both of these beliefs are true, to an extent. For the last few years, or perhaps as long as I’ve been involved in student politics, it has been incredibly cliquey, with rivalry playing out between NOLS and Trots. Also, not every sabb is able to put every single policy into place, understandably. I always felt, however, that this “rivalry” was not that toxic, apart from a few vicious occurrences between individuals. It has been mostly mutually playful, half-meaning half-not meaning the offhand insults we chuck at each other.

This election has shown that the problem isn’t only factionalism. If it was, and people didn’t want to vote because disillusioned, why would they bluntly admit that they won’t vote for a candidate because he is gay and open about his sexuality? The offensive accusations and excuses I’ve seen people throw around seem to a be masquerading their bigotry rather than a genuine loss of faith in and constructive criticism about EUSA and those involved. Alleged attacks on current and hopeful sabbs’ politics and policies are thinly-veiled, bigoted assaults on character and person. This is smearing at its finest, presenting facts twisted for their own aggressive agendas and cherry-picking evidence to exaggerate facts and turn people against each other.

For years, sabb hopefuls have campaigned with policies to try and get more students involved and interested in EUSA and to convince them that sabbs and elected representatives are there to support them and improve their university lives, not steamroll into EUSA with their own personal agendas. Of course, I believe it is necessary for sabbs to be political. I’m fed up with candidates saying they should be apolitical and not take a stance on matters of oppression on campus and beyond. This is harmful. Policies to improve representation of marginalized groups on campus and expressions of outrage or solidarity are needed to represent the worries and struggles of students in Edinburgh and oppressed groups worldwide. Even if a candidate did run saying they were “apolitical”, I believe this would be impossible. Everything you do or actively do not do around contentious political issues or problems around minority representation is political. Opting out of being political IS STILL POLITICAL!

Even if you are not aligned with a political party or group, your lived experiences, oppressions and preferences will shape how you go about your role as a representative. But no one is saying that that is all they will fight for, and that they will ignore the needs of all students. EUSA has been accused of being “too political” and excluding students in some of their campaigns, whether it is putting out messages of solidarity to those fighting and dying in Palestine, or campaigning against Rape Culture and Lad Banter on campus. Never are these campaigns pursued in the name of harming students; on the contrary, they are put in place to protect them and uphold values of inclusivity. Often, to protect groups already vulnerable in society. Furthermore, most of these types of campaigns are voted in through student council, which is open to all. Disagreement with the aims of the campaigns does not equate to the campaigns actively seeking to hurt and misrepresent you.

I’d go far as saying I expect sabb candidates to be involved in political decisions. I wouldn’t trust someone who said they won’t bring their politics into their role. I don’t doubt for a second that if they were elected as sabb their political opinions or preferences would eventually play out in their decisions.

Asking a sabb to be political is not asking them to ignore everything but their own opinions. It is to take into account that yes, we may disagree, but I trust you to make informed decisions and listen to me when I ask you to take a stand on issues that effect me. I would be outraged if we didn’t campaign against Rape Culture or express outrage and solidarity to the people of Palestine because it was “too contentious”. Since when was sticking up for oppressed people and people being murdered a contentious issue?

We are students and we have interests and a duty to speak out against injustices when possible. I would dare any of us try and cope in the “real world” once we graduate while being apolitical and neutral on all matters of politics. I would also be incredibly upset if my union did not stand up for what I and many other students believed to be right. It is nonsense to suggest that this is possible or should be mandated.

You cannot separate the politics from the person, that is certain, but when was that a bad thing? Political disagreement isn’t the end of the world. Sticking up for what is right and banding together against blatant bigotry and injustice despite difference of opinion is necessary, whether those issues are on our campus or beyond.

I think now it has dawned on many of us who are involved in these factions – or are just old hacks – that we aren’t the worst problem. The problem is intolerance, and we need to work together stamp that out.

“See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” is what you’re naively suggesting. I’d say “ignore no evil, challenge all evil, and speak the truth”. Encourage your representatives to stand up against injustice, and don’t chastise them when they do.

Remember, RON can be a dick but he is also your friend. Use him when you need him.

RON anyone who think has offensive or bad policies. You are allowed to not vote for people or actively RON the heck out of them. Trust me, it is a lovely feeling.

You don’t have to vote for the least worst person: if you think they are bad but not as bad as the rest, you still don’t have to vote for them. Voting for no-one is fine. After all, you don’t want someone you think is bad representing you.

Anger is a legitimate feeling and passive aggression by way of RON-ing someone is a legitimate form of expression. I have personally had plenty experience of feeling guilty for not voting for someone, but then realizing if I don’t wan to support them at all, it’s the right thing to do. It is important to vote if you want to and feel you have confidence in the people you’re voting for, but if you don’t, you are not obligated to vote at all.

You can vote by logging into MyEd and there is a link on the right hand side! Remember, you have until Thursday at 12 noon!

Good luck to the candidates I like and see you on Thursday, punks, to all the rest of you.

Whoever you’re supporting, or against, or if you’re not supporting anyone at all, it is unacceptable to slander them and direct abusive language towards them or use aspects of their identity to debase them, especially when those aspects place them firmly in already marginalized groups.

So far we have had Faatima’s posters ripped down around Teviot and a petition launched against her – doesn’t seem like it could just be a coincidence, following the last week’s “controversies” around her. We have also had homophobic abuse directed at Theo, with students literally saying they wouldn’t vote for him because he’s gay. We have had members of frats who threatened to rape women allowed on campaign teams, and safe space being mightily broken. This behavior is astoundingly bad. I predicted this year would be more brutal than last, but this is just hatred and bigotry.

This isn’t even about factionalism anymore. The people who are showing this behaviour are people who have never really been involved in EUSA before, or at least not in the Trot/NOLS faction war; the most that’s going on between the actual factions are a few half-hearted or jokey remarks passed between hacks on Twitter or on here. Saying you will not vote for someone because of their sexual orientation is homophobia at work, it is the kind of mentality that means there are only a small amount of people who define as LGBTQIA in government. Calling a woman of colour racist shrouds the problem at hand and discourages others from running in case they get the same flack as her. And guess what that leads to? People of colour being further discouraged to engage fearing that if they do they will be met with attack.

I am actually amazed at all of this. And how in the first three days of campaigning we have seen blatant racism, sexism and homophobia at work. I admire the dedication of candidates who are still going out there and wanting to engage “real students” and get people who aren’t usually interested or confident in EUSA to change their minds. The behaviour of so many “real students” that has occurred recently really is just hate, and not a hate for EUSA. Attempts to engage and reach out and welcome in have been met with aggression and ignorance.

I have never known this amount of bigoted abuse suffered by other candidates before (maybe because we’ve had a long history of white straight men running and being elected until last year’s sabbs). I’ve heard it during their terms, when they are put on a pedestal and constantly shat upon simultaneously, expected to meet every single demand immediately or be no-conned, as apparently that’s what you should expect in this line of work. But the abuse has started early this year. And it has been so personal and targeted it hardly seems like political disagreement anymore but rather bigotry.

These events have nothing to do with disillusion with EUSA but with abuse targeted towards the more vulnerable in society, and a reaction to them going out and asking for support and solidarity. It seems like an attack on their “audacity” to ask for better and strive to help.

So much solidarity to Faatima and Theo and anyone who has suffered this and past campaigns too. We are trying to make this campus a more tolerant and safer place, and we will get there, I promise.

Share this:

Like this:

I am dealing with people spamming this blog saying I am evil and sexist and lying and wrong and racist, and a presidential candidate is getting harassed with false accusations of racism, and another presidential candidate is going to Big Cheese promoting the hashtag #saveourstraws.

What the fuck is this? This is actual farce.

Theo – I would absolutely love for you to talk more about your other policies. I understand its only a few days into elections, but I’m finding it really difficult to deal with this pretty much meaningless hashtag when there’s stuff on your manifesto about liberation and other candidates are getting harassed and you’re not talking about them!

I get that candidates like making light-hearted policies that will grab attention and get students on board, but please also talk about the serious stuff! There are people out there who want to hear it, as well as or maybe instead of these catch phrases.